Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

Log-in

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Additional Options

Miscellaneous Options

Automatically parse links in text

Automatically embed media (requires automatic parsing of links in text to be on).

Automatically retrieve titles from external links

Topic Review (Newest First)

08-19-2005 07:35 AM

bet on black

if you get an electronic boost controller you can change boost levels from the driver's seat with a dial. o you can use a manual boost controller and you can change it with a wrench under the hood in a matter of seconds.

as far as remote turbos,
they do work, but it is not ideal. you use a smaller turbine than you would normally use to get the trubo to spool up, because of the lower exhaust temps, and much larger volume of tubing. you need the return pump, because turbos use a gravity return line to the oil pan. if the line from the turbo to the pan is not down hill, it will not drain properly. it can cause problems with the oil seals.

08-18-2005 06:29 PM

smallblocker2

this a pretty good debate. I like them both but am leaning toward turbos because they have a lower BSFC than superchargers, and twin turbo's look pretty wicked. I'd probly go for the cheapest thoughioie how easy it i to bolt on a centrifugal charger though.

gas is big bucks though, the more power you can make for the same amount of gas is key.

I like how you can change pulleys to increase/decrease boost.

08-17-2005 02:01 PM

farna

I have to agree, it's generally easier to install a low profile blower (or cut a hole in the hood) than a turbo because of all the plumbing and the room it takes up beside and in front of the engine. You can cut a hole in the inner fender well, but there's other things under that fender! It's not like going up where there's nothing but the hood (well, lack of vision around the blower counts).

It's not as efficient, but what about the remote turbos like Squires (www.ststurbo.com)? I already know some efficiency is lost, but it still takes lost power and adds boost. If you're looking for a bit more power but not something like 20 psi, this sounds to me like a really good option. Since it takes the place of the muffler it's not creating any more back pressure. Typical output seems to be around 5-8 psi, but Squires mentions getting "near 20 psi" (which I read more like 15 psi) out of a remote unit. Still takes a ton of work and some tubing welding, but for relatively low boost seems like a good idea. I plan on eventually using a Chrysler 2.2L turbo remote mounted on my 4.6L in-line six (bored/stroked Jeep 4.0L). Instead of routing engine oil to the turbo I'm going to make a remote reservoir with electric circulation pump. I'm only concerned a bit about oil pressure -- finding an electric pump that will circulate is easy, that will do it at 10-15 psi might be a bit tough. Since turbo bearings typically "float" in oil, pressure is needed. Might have to run a line from the engine. Squires does that but uses a pump to take it back to the engine. I really question using a return pump though -- shouldn't be necessary should it?

And before anyone cries "it won't work", look at Squires site for one thing, then go visit your nearest museum with WWII vintage aircraft. A B-17 bomber uses a huge remote turbo on the back of each 1820 cubic inch radial piston engine. An approx. 6" ID pipe runs 10' back on the outboard engines, near 20' on the inboards (where the landing gear is -- turbo is behind gear well). The center section of pipe has cooling fins! The P-47 Thunderbolt also had a turbo mounted in the rear part of the fuselage, 15-20' from the engine. So this isn't a new idea.

I already stated I know it's not as efficient as a turbo mounted close to the engine. But please, don't anyone come up with "if it works so well manufacturers would have used it"!! It's more cost effective to put all the engine parts in one unit and drop the hole shebang in. It's not that hard when you can start from a drawing board and have a hefty R&D budget to work with, and since it's a bit more efficient, that's the best way to go. Adding it to an existing vehicle NOT designed with space for a turbo, or where everything has to be custom made, is a different story.

On a drag car cut the rear floors out and run the turbo just a foot or two behind a standard aftermarket header. I don't mean leave the floor out, but make a raised floor and stick the turbo in the well. Then you can dump the exhaust almost straight out the side, angled to exit in front of the rear wheel. Pipe the compressed air through the car and out the center of the dash.

Will be a lot less cost and work than a trasitional under hood mount. I can afford to lose a little efficiency as long as there is adequate boost.

08-16-2005 02:07 PM

bet on black

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowtiebadboy

compare stock to stock

turbo: grand national, srt4, wrx sti, talons,omnis, and others

supercharger: late model monte carlos, bonnevilles, and thats all i can think of right now

i think those stock turbo cars are a hell of alot faster than the stock supercharged

my Lightning is supercharged from the factory, and it was pretty quick when it was stock. mid 13's at full weight (5,000 lbs.)

03/04 cobras (aka terminators) were supercharged from the factory as well.

mercedes e55 has a roots blower also

with all that said, i am working on replacing my blower with a turbo.

08-16-2005 12:30 PM

Siggy_Freud

A properly setup turbo system will experience minimal lag. Lag is a result of low velocity due to both/either a turbo that is too large (meaning piping/inlet is too large for the volume) and an overall system that does not promote smooth airflow (meaning sharp curves, ridges, etc).

If you build a turbo system that is both efficient in size and airflow pattern, you will experience little lag.

08-15-2005 12:51 PM

airman_turtle

Well the issue with turbo lag is eliminated when you "brake torque" at the line. When drag cars have turbos, they spool up at the line so when the light turns green they are leaving the line with near full boost.

True on the part of difficulty, SC is much easier.

08-14-2005 03:27 AM

baulet

I voted for supercharger.

easy to install, tune up, low end torque, sound...
the turbo is more difficult to install for a no-welder.

08-14-2005 03:16 AM

Malibu73

Quote:

Originally Posted by airman_turtle

well ill have to agree with the SC guys for the asthetic look and "takin it back to the roots" style...but if you wanna win races...turbo is the only way to go.

That's an ignorant comment, there's plenty of superchargers out there that win races. People don't just get them 'for the look' they get them because they're also powerful and have instant power.

I don't know much about turbos but I was reading some other comments in this thread and someone said you can tune a turbo so it has no lag. Where as a S/C you just slap on there and adjust your timing and there you go.

I'd probably have either but I've always loved superchagers, they make it look like you have something powerful under (or over) your hood.

07-09-2005 09:54 PM

77z

My engine builder and me had this conversation a week or two ago and his comments were something like this. Turbos are fine if A you have room B you dont mine the high underhood temp C dont mind the extra weight of plumbing under the hood D cost of haveing the tubing made ( or time if you can weld aluminum at home )

I wanted to do turbos on my car but after all that and seeing a friends f2 prochargered acadian im seriously tempted to go that route . Roots blowers always have a place in my heart just it pains me to think of cutting my hood

Regards Mike

07-09-2005 09:48 PM

TurboS10

Quote:

Originally Posted by willys36@aol.com

Doesn't the Ford modular engine have a roots option? I'm pretty sure a friend of mine got the roots SC on his '04 Mustang Cobra.

Yep, but they are pretty weak from the factor. I think with some mods they will push better than 500HP.

07-09-2005 03:45 PM

willys36@aol.com

Doesn't the Ford modular engine have a roots option? I'm pretty sure a friend of mine got the roots SC on his '04 Mustang Cobra.

07-09-2005 03:20 PM

jesse01

Quote:

Originally Posted by 70nova

My vote would have to go to the centrifugal supercharger. Like a turbo, centrifugal superchargers can be installed underhood and are capable of running a TON of boost, but the supercharger does not require the custom exhaust that the turbo does.

i agree, i want to get a vortech or a paxton for myself to put on my 383 TPI to see what kinda power i can make

plus they don't look all that hard to install

J

07-09-2005 12:06 PM

airman_turtle

well ill have to agree with the SC guys for the asthetic look and "takin it back to the roots" style...but if you wanna win races...turbo is the only way to go.

07-09-2005 11:15 AM

66GMC

Quote:

Originally Posted by airman_turtle

but you cant get a very good idea comparing a new GTP to a damn Probe

Uhhh ... yeah ... that's what thought I said And you're right ... there's absolutely no comparison

07-08-2005 10:02 PM

HemmiGremmie

Ive said it a million times.
Its weather you like the big power n looks or big power n stock look.
To me, nothing says wow more than a belt drivin, whinning like a grandma with arthritis belt drivin blower. HG

This thread has more than 15 replies.
Click here to review the whole thread.